JUDGMENT : 1. Since the facts and question of law involved in these writ petitions are common, hence the same were heard together and being decided by this judgment. 2. To avoid repetition, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/2015 are taken for consideration. 3. The respondent issued a notice, which was published in a daily newspaper ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ on 23.02.2013, inviting online tender for purchase of Sabla kits. Last date for submission of tender was fixed up to 01.03.2013 and the date for opening the tenders was fixed at 3:00 PM on 04.03.2013. Premier Printing Press is engaged in the business of print work, in response to the tender notice issued by the respondent on 23.02.2013, submitted his bids along-with required documents. The respondents, vide letter dated 15.03.2013, required the petitioner to deposit security amount of Rs.6.31 lakhs and also required the petitioner to execute an agreement on stamp paper of Rs.5000/- within three days. The petitioner complied with both the requirements. The respondents thereafter gave work order to the petitioner for supplying 16150 sabla kits all over the Rajasthan, vide work order dated 28.03.2013. As per case of petitioner, it prepared 16150 sabla kids within the prescribed time. The purchase committee of the respondent department inspected all 16150 sabla kits and also obtained samples of one training kit, which was sent for testing to MSME Testing Station. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application to the respondent to give the supply order. The respondent department required the petitioner to supply 9960 sabla kits vide work order no. 56120 dated 24.09.2013, requiring the petitioner to further supply 9960 sabla kits up to 03.10.2013. The petitioner, vide letter dated 26.09.2013, requested the respondents to grant it 30 days time for supplying the said kits and according to the petitioner further supply order of remaining kits was also issued. The petitioner then requested that supply order of remaining kits may also be given. On request of the petitioner, the respondent extended the time to supply sabla kits up to 11.10.2013. The petitioner, in this phase, supplied 9960 sabla kits to the concerned projects in various districts of the State of Rajasthan up to the prescribed time. The respondent thereafter issued sanction order dated 20.11.2013 for payment in favour of the petitioner, however, did not issue the work order for supply of remaining kits. 4. The petitioner, in this phase, supplied 9960 sabla kits to the concerned projects in various districts of the State of Rajasthan up to the prescribed time. The respondent thereafter issued sanction order dated 20.11.2013 for payment in favour of the petitioner, however, did not issue the work order for supply of remaining kits. 4. Major R.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for petitioner, argued that the respondents gave purchase order to the petitioner for supply of 16150 sabla kits. The petitioner accordingly prepared all the sabla training kits but work order for supply of remaining kits was not placed. The petitioner therefore requested the respondent by various letter such as letters dated 02.12.2013, 10.12.2013, 01.01.2014, 17.01.2014, 03.04.2014, 02.06.2014 and 13.11.2014, making similar requests. When all aforesaid letters/applications failed to evoke any response, the petitioner through his advocate served legal notice for demand of justice on the respondent on 27.12.2014. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1012/2015 before this court, which came to be decided vide order dated 29.01.2015. This court required the petitioner to approach the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Women Empowerment and Child Development Department, to take appropriate action with regard to supply of remaining sabla kits or otherwise decide the representation by reasoned order within a period of six weeks. The petitioner thereupon made a detailed representation on 03.02.2015, and the respondent disposed of the same by order dated 12.03.2015 stating the reason that as per supply order sabla kits have already been received and payment has already been made. Supply of remaining kits cannot be placed. It I argued that the respondents have on one hand rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 12.03.2015, on the other hand they issued fresh tender notice dated 02.03.2015 inviting bids for purchase of 15437 sabla kits which implies that the representation of the petitioner was straightway rejected. The respondents did not assign any reason why they have not issued supply order for remaining kits. The petitioner in compliance of original work order dated 28.03.2013 had already prepared all sabla kits, inspection whereof had already been undertaken by the respondents. The petitioner is facing huge loss of Rs.50,000/- per month of rent and interest on loss of material work for more than Rs.50,00,000/-. Such kits were tested in the lab and found in order. The petitioner in compliance of original work order dated 28.03.2013 had already prepared all sabla kits, inspection whereof had already been undertaken by the respondents. The petitioner is facing huge loss of Rs.50,000/- per month of rent and interest on loss of material work for more than Rs.50,00,000/-. Such kits were tested in the lab and found in order. While on one hand the respondents are not obtaining supply of sabla kits of the petitioner, on the other, they have issued fresh tender notice for supply of 15437 sabla kits. Action of the respondent is not only arbitrary and capricious but also suffers from malice in facts and law. 5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner, relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Devi Ispat Ltd. - (2010) 11 SCC 186 , argued that even in contractual matters writ jurisdiction of this court can be invoked particularly when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably under its contractual, constitutional and statutory obligations. Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Verigamto Naveen vs. Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Others – (2001) 8 SCC 344 , to argue that interference in contractual matters is permissible where the breach of contract involves breach of statutory obligation when the order complained of was made in exercise of statutory power by a statutory authority under Section 30 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 6. Mr. Sumit Teterwal, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that since the dispute pertains to a matter of breach of contract, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of writ of mandamus for enforcement of such contractual obligation would not be maintainable. Reliance is placed on judgments of the Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Devi Ispat Limited and Others – (2010) 11 SCC 186 , Vergamto Naveen Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others – (2001) 8 SCC 344 and Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and Others – Civil Appeal No.6929/2012 decided on 14.05.2015. 7. It is submitted that only one work order was issued on 24.09.2013 to the petitioner for supply of 9960 sabla kits. Govt. of A.P. and Others – (2001) 8 SCC 344 and Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and Others – Civil Appeal No.6929/2012 decided on 14.05.2015. 7. It is submitted that only one work order was issued on 24.09.2013 to the petitioner for supply of 9960 sabla kits. On receipt of the supply, the payment thereof has already been made but the procurement committee on sudden inspection found certain irregularities in the process of purchase. The provisions contained in the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 were found to have been violated. The point no.10 and condition no.25(1), 31 and 7G of the tender document were also found to have been violated. Owing to all these reasons, procurement of remaining 6190 sabla kits was not possible. The concerned officers found guilty for violating of all the aforesaid provisions, were served with show cause notice and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them under the relevant Rules is under consideration. It is submitted that fresh tender issued on 02.03.2015 for procurement of 15437 sabla kits is with new specifications and is totally different from the work order placed for procurement thereof in the year 2013. Change in the contents and specifications is entirely a matter of policy. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India – (2015) 7 SCC 728 , and argued that if the facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence; involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the court in such cases can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit etc. Even otherwise, the aggrieved party may sue for damages. It is argued that the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of State is under the realm of a private law. There being no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. There being no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. Major R.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for petitioner, rejoined and submitted that the respondents in the first instance decided the representation of the petitioner by impugned order dated 12.03.2015 by merely observing that it was not just to obtain supply of remaining kits and therefore the work order for such procurement cannot be issued. This court, vide order dated 24.11.2015, observed that the order passed by the respondent cannot be said to be a reasoned one and therefore due compliance of the judgment of this court has not been made. Petitioner was therefore required to file a fresh representation raising his grievance, to the Additional Chief Secretary, Women Empowerment and Child Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, who was directed to decide the same fairly and justly, by reasoned order. The Additional Chief Secretary by subsequent order dated 04.12.2015 again rejected the representation by observing that the order dated 28.03.2013 for supply of 12505 kits in respect of remaining supply was cancelled and security amount was ordered to be refunded, subject to order of this court. The agreement dated 28.03.2013 executed between the parties was valid only for a period of one year, which could be extended at the option of the employer for another year. If the rate of payment were approved on 13.03.2013, the same would be valid for a period of one year i.e. up to 12.03.2014. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. Record would bear it out that the rate offered by the petitioner being lowest, he was awarded contract and agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent wherein the petitioner agreed to supply tendered items, the respondent issued an order no.15836 dated 28.03.2013 to the petitioner to supply 16150 sabla kits at the rate of Rs.744/- + 5% VAT. Such supply was to be made within 90 days. A Committee appointed by the respondents obtained the samples of the kits from the petitioner, which is evident from the proceedings dated 02.07.2013. The respondents, however, received 9960 sabla kits in the first instance. Such supply was to be made within 90 days. A Committee appointed by the respondents obtained the samples of the kits from the petitioner, which is evident from the proceedings dated 02.07.2013. The respondents, however, received 9960 sabla kits in the first instance. The respondents issued an order to the petitioner for supply of sabla kits to various Child Development Projects as per order dated 24.09.2013. This included five districts, namely, Bhilwara, Udaipur, Jhalawar, Bikaner and Jaipur. The respondents while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, have not given cogent reason why despite having accepted tender of the petitioner for supply of 16150 sabla kits, only partial supply was obtained and remaining supply was not obtained. The respondents having held out the representation to the petitioner by accepting his tender and placing the order dated 28.03.2013 for supply of 16150 sabla kits, are now estopped from going back upon their stand. 11. The respondents issued the order to the petitioner, which is evident from order dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure-3) and agreement dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure-4) executed between the parties and thereafter the respondents issued the order dated 28.03.2013 to the petitioner. In both these letters/orders, the order was issued to the petitioner for supply of 16150 sabla kits at the rate of Rs.744/- + 5% VAT. Pursuant to order of this court, the respondents twice decided the representation of the petitioner; while in the first order dated 12.03.2015, they did not give any reason at all and therefore this court by order dated 24.11.2015 required the petitioner to file fresh representation with direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh by reasoned and speaking order. Even on second occasion, the respondents, vide order dated 04.12.2015, which runs in eight pages, rejected the same but no reasons were disclosed for not procuring the supply of remaining kits despite having required the petitioner to prepare such kits. All that is discernible from record is that the Director at that time invited attention of the Government towards the fact that distribution of sabla kits has already been delayed, the total purchase order of Rs.252.37 lakhs was placed whereas Hon’ble Minister has granted approval only for Rs.223.60 lakhs, the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 were also not properly followed and that procedural irregularities were committed. The decision was therefore taken for issue of charge-sheet upon the erring officers and accordingly charge-sheet was issued to Mr. Virendra Mehta, the Chief Accounts Officer under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Lastly it is stated that fresh object and guidelines have not yet been received, the requirement of present time when earlier tender was issued, were totally different and therefore not only representation of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Chief Secretary by order dated 03.12.2015 but he also cancelled the work order dated 24.09.2015 to the extent of remaining kits by accepting the fact that the contract should be taken to have been acted upon to the extent of kits already supplied. 12. The petitioner in his additional affidavit filed on 04.11.2015, referring to para 377N of the note-sheet, submitted that the purchase committee met on 21.08.2014 and submitted its report. Therein reference is made to estimated bill of Rs.223.60 lakhs, which was approved by the Minister concerned, but in that very note-sheet it is stated that the decision was taken to purchase 24700 training kits. The note-sheet also acknowledges a fact that orders were placed with the petitioner for supply of 16150 kits. The note-sheet further states that approval was granted by the Minister for the amount of Rs.223.60 lakhs for such purchase and presently the amount of Rs.220.23 lakhs was available, whereas budget requirement for procuring sabla kits was Rs.252.32 lakhs, and the deficient amount of Rs.32.10 be adjusted from the P.D. Account of Kishori Shakti Yojna or be spent from the budget made available for sabla scheme in the next financial year 2013-14. All these are the developments based on intra departmental communications but the fact remains that the respondents entered into contract with petitioner and then placed the purchase order for supply of 16150 sabla kits. The petitioner having acting upon all such purchase orders, prepared 16150 sabla kits and it would be not only unjust, unfair and arbitrary but also unreasonable on the part of the respondents not to procure remaining supply and make payment thereof. 13. Coming now to the argument that present matter is a simple case of breach of contract and jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for enforcement of contractual obligation, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. 13. Coming now to the argument that present matter is a simple case of breach of contract and jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for enforcement of contractual obligation, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Devi Ispat Limited and Others – (2010) 11 SCC 186 , wherein their Lordships observed that that in the contract if there is a clause for arbitration, normally a writ court should not invoke its jurisdiction and existence of effective alternative remedy provided in the contract itself is a good ground to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but if the instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good, public interest, unfairly, unjustly, unreasonably, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in its contractual or statutory obligation, writ petition would be maintainable. However, a legal right must exist in favour of citizen and also corresponding legal duty on the part of the State. If any action on the part of the State is wholly unfair or arbitrary, writ court can exercise its power. 14. In Verigamto Naveen Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others – (2001) 8 SCC 344 , the Supreme Court held that the freedom of the Government to enter into business with anybody it likes is subject to the condition of reasonableness and fair play as well as public interest. It was further held that after entering into a contract, in cancelling the contract which is subject to terms of the statutory provisions, it cannot be said that the matter falls purely in a contractual field and therefore, it cannot be held that since the matter arises purely on contract, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is not called for. 15. In cited judgment in Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and Others – Civil Appeal No.6929/2012 decided on 14.05.2015, the Supreme Court held that the State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practice some discrimination. If the facts of such case are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, Involving examination and cross- examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. If the facts of such case are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, Involving examination and cross- examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. Here in the present case, the facts are not such which require any detailed evidence, rather the facts are admitted and therefore I see no reason to non-suit the petitioner and grant undue benefit to the respondent only because it happens to be a State. The State Government having entered into contract with private party, cannot be allowed to act unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably under its contractual, constitutional and statutory obligations. Other judgments cited on behalf of the respondents are distinguishable on facts. 17. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation - (1998) 8 SCC 1 , is the landmark decision on the question of maintainability of writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. In that case too, it was held by the Supreme Court that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction, but the alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Supreme Court not to operate as a bar in at least four contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act is challenged. 18. In Whirlpool's case, supra, the Supreme Court followed its earlier two Constitution Bench judgments in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani – AIR 1961 SC 1506 and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Companies Distt. - AIR 1961 SC 372 . 19. 18. In Whirlpool's case, supra, the Supreme Court followed its earlier two Constitution Bench judgments in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs Vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani – AIR 1961 SC 1506 and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Companies Distt. - AIR 1961 SC 372 . 19. In A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, supra, the Supreme Court held as under:- "The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned Solicitor General formulated to the normal rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive, and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual fact which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus preeminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible rules which should be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court." 20. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., supra, the Supreme Court held as under: "Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against the Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under Section 34, Income Tax Act." 21. In Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another – (2010) 4 SCC 772 , writ petition was entertained by the High Court even though appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 also lay before the High Court on a question of law. In Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another – (2010) 4 SCC 772 , writ petition was entertained by the High Court even though appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 also lay before the High Court on a question of law. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of the Act does not provide an efficacious remedy. The Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court granted liberty to the appellate before it to file appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the FEMA within a period of thirty days. That judgment turned out on its peculiar facts. 22. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others – (2010) 8 SCC 110 , it was held by the Supreme court that in the matters arising out of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, where alternative remedy by filing application under Section 17(1) before Debts Recovery Tribunal is available to the writ petitioner, the High Court should not under Article 226 of the Constitution entertain writ petitions and grant stay in such matters except where writ petitioner is able to show that the case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in the judgments of the Supreme Court. 23. In H.P. And Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and Another – AIR 2005 SC 3936 , the Supreme Court while considering the objection of alternative remedy to filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that despite existence of alternative remedy, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. But normally, the High Court should not interfere if there is efficacious alternative remedy is available. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case that there exists good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. But normally, the High Court should not interfere if there is efficacious alternative remedy is available. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case that there exists good ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. Following observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced herein for the facility of reference:- “Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. It was noted by this Court in L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR (1971) SC 33 that if the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of alternative remedy and heard the parties on merits it would be ordinarily unjustifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the High Court finds that factual disputes are involved and it would not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition.” 24. The Supreme Court in Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong and Others – (1988) 1 SCC 401 , held that normally in a case where tax or money has been realized without the authority of law, there is in such cases concomitant duty to refund the realization as a corollary of the constitutional inhibition that should be respected unless it causes injustice or loss in any specific case or violates any specific provision of law. If the tax was collected without authority of law, the respondents had no authority to retain the money and were liable to refund the same, held the Supreme Court. If the tax was collected without authority of law, the respondents had no authority to retain the money and were liable to refund the same, held the Supreme Court. It held that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has power to direct refund, however, courts have made a distinction between those cases where a claimant approaches a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down of the order of assessment etc. A petition solely praying for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money allegedly collected by the State of tax is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. In Godavari Sugar Mills Limited, supra, also it was held by the Supreme Court that there is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment. 25. The Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another – (2000) 10 SCC 482 , has added one more exception to the rule of alternative remedy, namely, the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts. 26. There are thus these seven well recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, which can be culled out from the afore discussed judgments of the Supreme Court, firstly where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights; secondly where there has been violation of principle of natural justice; thirdly where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; fourthly where the vires of any Act is under challenge; fifthly where availing of alternative remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment; sixthly where the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on facts and seventhly, where State or its intermediary in a contractual matter acts against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly and arbitrarily. 27. 27. Despite afore-noted exceptions, especially fifth and seventh of the above, whether or not in a particular case the writ court should entertain a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution despite availability of alternative remedy, would always depend on the facts situation of a given case. In the facts of the present case, where the facts are undisputed and the Government has been found acting unjustly, unfairly and unreasonably even in regard to its contractual obligations, this Court would be justified in issuing the writ of mandamus as prayed for. 28. In the result, writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2015 and fresh tender notice dated 02.03.2015 are quashed. The respondents are directed to furnish supply order to the petitioner and obtain supply of remaining 6190 sabla kits and payment of the same be also made forthwith together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. This exercise be completed within a period of three months. 29. This also disposes off stay applications no.3302/2015 and 3303/2015. 30. Office to place a copy of this judgment in connected file.